Taking my 20m profit and exiting this convoluted market also.

I exited my position.

Given the nature of the how this question has been playing out, I think the market should just be N/A before yet another change in criteria causes yet another round of confusion.

so currently you DONT believe luigi is the person who shot the ceo?

Hi everyone. I'm sorry for the confusion in this market and for the delay in addressing it. I would like to address mistakes in establishing and handling the market and propose different resolution criteria.

I created the market soon after the NYPD commissioner named Luigi Mangione as the person arrested in Altoona as a person of interest in the Brian Thompson shooting. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/brian-thompson-unitedhealthcare-death-investigation-12-9-24#cm4hdzv4x00003b6m1pbvgfot

After that we received more and more information. We heard about the ghost gun and the handwritten document. We heard about Luigi Mangione's social media accounts. We heard that he was charged with murder. But I have not seen Mangione directly state after the arrest that he is the one who shot Thompson.

One Manifold user asked if the market would be resolved based on conviction with all appeals exhausted, and I didn't immediately think of a better alternative. I replied that that did seem reasonable. Some users thought that approach did not align well with the spirit of the title of the market. That's a good point. There is, after all, a different Manifold market on whether Luigi Mangione is convicted.

What would people think if I were to resolve this market based on whether I come to believe based on additional evidence that Luigi Mangione is the person who shot Brian Thompson? This would be instead of resolving based on a conviction or a guilty plea.

Also, if no new information leads me to resolve the market by the 12/31/25 close date, then I will be happy to push it back. I want to especially thank @MaximLott for making me think about flexibility in close date.

Based on the response to this comment, I will consider updating the market description to reflect changes and remove AI summaries.

I recognize that this market has many participants and I want to solicit feedback before making any changes. Again, I apologize for the confusion. Thank you.

@Jx this is getting so convoluted. What was your initial resolution criteria for this question? If it was “whether I come to believe based on additional evidence that Luigi Mangione is the person who shot Brian Thompson”, wipe everything from the question description and add that in.

>One Manifold user asked if the market would be resolved based on conviction with all appeals exhausted, and I didn't immediately think of a better alternative. I replied that that did seem reasonable

You said it seemed reasonable but did you explicitly say, “yes, that’s the criterion”? If so, then that’s grounds for N/A’ing I think… If not, then as I suggested above: put your initial criteria in. Either way people are going to upset here and asking for opinions gets you no further to a solution. (I managed to sell most of my Yes shares so I’m acting somewhat as a neutral here…)

@Jx

1) even though it is not the exact wording of the question i think being convicted is an acceptable resolution. Or more specifically

a) being found guilty

b) changing the plea to guilty

c) being found a killer but innocent (for reason of insanity or self-defense)

2) resolution time: some traders may have factored "the trial being over by end-of-year" for their NO bet (I factored it agaisnt my YES). On the other hand the question and initial description do not imply it. You'll always make someone feel mislead here.

3) when asked "based on a criminal conviction, with all appeals exhausted?" you answered "yes, conviction seems like a reasonable threshold". I've interpreted this as the appeals not being required, despite of what the AI summary said. You might not know much about criminal justice but running out of appeals would likely take ~2 decades.

@Jx i think you should not yet again change the market.

Is title not changeable? Changing title to reflect current resolution seems more reasonable.

@Jx Maybe you could create a new market instead, and perhaps change the title of this one? I think changing the resolution criteria for this market at this point would be very unfair to the people who bet on it based on the current resolution criteria (including the "NO if not convicted by 2026" in particular, which is imo the main reason this market would resolve NO currently). (I have thousands of mana bet on arbitraging this market against another one with the same resolution criteria, which I obviously wouldn't have done had the resolution criteria been different for this one...)

@Jx IMO The best thing would have been to resolve after arrest and seeing sufficient evidence. The next best thing is probably to just leave it alone for now.

@Jx I think at this point it's pretty clear that Mangione is the killer. So effectively, you'd change a market from "will he be convicted by end of 2025?" to a "resolves Yes" market. I bought lots of "No" at 80% or so (in part due to seeing a split with the other market, in which I have a Yes stake). Obviously, I wouldn't have bought "No" in a "resolves Yes" market at 80%. By changing the criteria to "resolves Yes", you're essentially taking away my "No" shares (and giving me nothing in return).

I assume lots of others are in similar positions. Therefore, I strongly think that this change in resolution criteria shouldn't be allowed. Perhaps @mods can comment.

Re the title: I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but it's common for Manifold market titles to be misleading in this sort of way when the market title doesn't imply clear resolution criteria. Thus, when a savvy Manifold user reads the title of the present markets, they will wonder whether this is based on subjective judgment of the market creator or on whether he's convicted, what the timeline for resolution is, etc. They will then read the description (and perhaps be surprised that the resolution criteria don't align with the title very well). Additionally, the market has pretty high number of traders at this point. So if someone sees just the title and the number of traders, they should realize that it's not a "resolves Yes" market and that something interesting is happening with the resolution criteria. So while I'd prefer the title to be something like "Will Mr. Mangione be convicted by end of 2025?", I don't think the title of the market is a reason to change the resolution criteria.

Finally, as @binarypigeon said: If you don't like the resolution criteria of this market, you can create a new market with the resolution criteria that you do like (e.g., will Mr. Mangione ever be convicted?; is he the murderer (resolves by judgement/media consensus)?; etc.).

@Jx I purchased no shares based on the criteria you provided in the comments. I imagine lots of other traders did the same thing. I am absolutely opposed to the changes you're proposing to make at this late date. You'd effectively be nullifying my shares.

@Jx this is really confusing and I think maybe it should just be NA'd

N/Aing seems better than changing the resolution criteria, but would still be a problem for people who arbitraged this market against the other one (or bought this one for insurance against the other one).

@Jx When do you plan to make a final ruling on this? Currently it's hard to trade on this market (and as a result other related markets) without knowing what the resolution criteria will eventually be.

@Jx thanks to everyone for the feedback. It was not universal, but it did lead me to think it would be best to keep the resolution criteria focused mainly on conviction.

So, to reiterate (and I will update the description shortly to reflect this):

- yes if Mangione is convicted of murder

- yes if Mangione pleads guilty

- no if Mangione is acquitted

- no if Mangione is not convicted

- no if Mangione never charged

- no if Mangione dies before a conviction

@Jx and what about the deadline? Being convicted with and without a deadline to allow the trial to reach a resolution would make a big difference

@Inception Right. Since the beginning of this market, the deadline has been 12/31/25. I'm inclined to keep that date but not opposed to delaying.

@Jx any degree murder? youre def going to need to update the title. might as well make a new market.

@strutheo Yes, I'm thinking any degree of murder. A title update would be a good idea. Maybe something like: "Will Luigi Mangione be convicted of murder by the end of 2025?"

@Jx yes but at that point you might as well make a new market, since that would be a pretty big change

@Jx why doesn't the question title say "will Mangione be convicted?", then? That's very different than the current question title.

@Jx

>Since the beginning of this market, the deadline has been 12/31/25. I'm inclined to keep that date but not opposed to delaying.

To me, changing the deadline isn't all that different from other changes of resolution criteria. I have little doubt that he will be convicted (eventually). I bet "no" specifically because it seems difficult to convict someone within ~1 year.

Using the conviction criteria isn't the solution here given the question wording, because the trial is on whether he's guilty of murder, not whether he shot the guy. Evidence for that existed at the point of arrest.

@Jx I reckon you won't change this now that a bunch of people have traded, but it's important to keep commission of a deed and conviction of a crime distinct, as they have different evidentiary standards.

Why isn’t this called “Will Luigi be convicted?” Seems like a pretty big difference between the title of the market and the resolution criteria

@willboiss I guess it's good that these debates get people thinking about the standard of evidence and not just binaries like true/untrue or yes/no.